For some, historic legislation recognizing Aboriginal title throughout Haida Gwaii is a blueprint for Reconciliation.

For others, it as a slippery slope toward re-defining property rights in B.C.

While the Haida Nation Recognition Amendment Act was among nine pieces of legislation that received Royal Assent on the final day of the legislature含羞草研究社檚 spring session, none carried more symbolic significance while generating more disagreement about its substance.

The act 含羞草研究社� which passed with 53 votes from New Democrats, Greens and independents in favour, against 25 votes from B.C. United and the Conservatives against 含羞草研究社� moves the Rising Tide Haida Title Lands Agreement signed April 14 into provincial law.

The agreement recognizes title (exclusive use and control) by the Haida First Nation over the 200-island-archipelago 100 kilometres west of B.C.含羞草研究社檚 northern coast and spells out the process for an estimated two-year transition toward Haida jurisdiction.

含羞草研究社淚t is explicit that this (law) will not impact private property, local government or the (public) services that people at Haida Gwaii use every day,含羞草研究社� Premier David Eby said Thursday in responding to continuous questions.

Eby said the law responds to legal conflicts that have lasted more than two decades and praised it as a path toward joined prosperity for all involved parties. He called it a 含羞草研究社渢emplate含羞草研究社� for other agreements.

Critics raise concerns about the property rights of non-First Nations. Supporters accuse those critics of unnecessarily stoking racial division.

The latter group includes First Nations Leadership Council, local municipal and private interests on Haida Gwaii, and former politicians, including former B.C. attorney-general Geoff Plant. Government also pointed it has consulted widely, including with leading business groups inside and outside the resource sector.

RELATED:

RELATED:

RELATED:

But more critical assessments persist.

McMillan LLP, a leading Canada-wide law firm, pointed to several questions in its assessment. They start with the 含羞草研究社減reliminary question含羞草研究社� of whether a 含羞草研究社渓aw specifically directed含羞草研究社� at recognizing and implementing Aboriginal title would be found unconstitutional if passed only by a provincial legislature.

B.C. Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation Murray Rankin said during debate last month that case law recognizes B.C.含羞草研究社檚 ability to implement Aboriginal title without Canada on the basis of exclusive provincial jurisdiction over property and civil rights.

But McMillan含羞草研究社檚 assessment also raises the question of whether private property is even possible under Aboriginal title. Courts have defined this as a 含羞草研究社渃ommunal含羞草研究社� right which First Nations cannot transfer, sell or surrender except to the Crown.

The assessment asks if First Nations can 含羞草研究社渃onsent含羞草研究社� to private ownership where Aboriginal title exists, what rights will private property owners have when Aboriginal title includes the 含羞草研究社渞ight to choose the use to which the land is put含羞草研究社�?

Private property accounting for about two per cent on Haida Gwaii remains under provincial jurisdiction in 含羞草研究社減erpetuity,含羞草研究社� Rankin said.

含羞草研究社淭he bill sets this out,含羞草研究社� he said. 含羞草研究社淚t含羞草研究社檚 codified with explicit Haida consent, leaving it absolutely clear and legally indisputable.含羞草研究社�

B.C. United含羞草研究社檚 Michael Lee, however, questioned this promise, noting that First Nations have challenged private ownership by non-First Nations in the past. Amendments by B.C. United that have would excluded private property from title recognition failed.

Rankin reiterated the protection of private property during debate, pointing to the analysis of Kent McNeil, emeritus distinguished research professor at Osgoode Hall Law School. While the Haida Nation can acquire fee simple lands, those lands will remain in private hands and will not be subject to Haida control or jurisdiction until purchased, Rankin said, citing McNeil.

It remains to be seen whether the act can serve as a template though.

含羞草研究社淲hile the (agreement) is an historic step in furtherance of reconciliation, the extent to which this (agreement) can serve as a blueprint for future Aboriginal title claims remains to be seen,含羞草研究社� reads an analysis from Osler, Hoskin and Harcourt.

That analysis adds that Haida Nation含羞草研究社檚 claim is 含羞草研究社渆xceptional含羞草研究社� in many ways, including the archipelago含羞草研究社檚 isolated geography and the absence of competing claims. 含羞草研究社淣onetheless含羞草研究社�(it) marks a positive step away from protracted litigation that has characterized Aboriginal title claims, toward greater cooperation and legal certainty.含羞草研究社�